4 ms·
What for? To start a war between nuclear powers just because of sabotage? Furthermore, we the members of NATO sometimes sabotage other members, like when some p
by severino 2y ago
What for? To start a war between nuclear powers just because of sabotage? Furthermore, we the members of NATO sometimes sabotage other members, like when some pipes of the Nord Stream pipeline were destroyed two years ago. So...
- Aerroon 2y ago>we the members of NATO sometimes sabotage other members, like when some pipes of the Nord Stream pipeline were destroyed two years ago. So... Or when NATO members wanted to build Nord Stream despite protests from other NATO members.
- TiredOfLife 2y ago>we the members of NATO sometimes sabotage other members, like when some pipes of the Nord Stream pipeline were destroyed two years ago Damn! You have evidence of that? That must be worth a fortune.
- vkou 2y agoIt's worth a lot less in a hypothetical scenario where everyone's decided its in their best interests to forget all about it, which may be similar to the scenario we're currently in. In politics, the truth isn't usually worth very much, and is second fiddle to the ends.
- lupusreal 2y agoSuppose ot were true, how would you turn the evidence into profit? Sell it to western media? Let the wrong person know and they'll tip off western intelligence and then your car will drive you into a tree. Sell it to Russia? Maybe they would pay, but would you like life in Russia? Once you're there, maybe they don't pay after all. Or maybe you sell it to Russia, stay in the west, and spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder. The proof, if any exists, is worse than worthless.
- severino 2y agoYou mean we don't know who managed to blow up the pipeline that some NATO members threatened to blow up several times? Yes, we only have this official investigation from two ""independent"" countries that wouldn't hesitate to point their finger at Russia if they had any evidence, no matter how weak, yet they closed it "without identifying perpetrators". You're right, no clue!
- jopsen 2y agoYou can argue that if it was Russia, western countries might want to ignore it, because otherwise they'd have to do something. Much easier to respond by supporting Ukraine. For a NATO ally to do it would be extremely risky -- what if the others hadn't kept quiet? (You can't always predict what your allies will do)
- snowpid 2y agoSorry the last sentence is not proofed. You imagine something.
- mistermann 2y agoThe funny part is: regardless of which side one is on, imagination is necessary, and typically: unavoidable and undetectable.